From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DMARC_REJECT,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,PLING_QUERY autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A617AAC39F for ; Tue, 21 May 2002 18:15:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost ([213.105.250.141]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020521231519.NODM2755.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@localhost> for ; Wed, 22 May 2002 00:15:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:13:55 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9?= Fonseca To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mesa >=3.5 masked!? Message-ID: <20020522001355.S8474@localhost> References: <20020520142936.E8474@localhost> <1021929278.6483.117.camel@nosferatu.lan> <20020520233212.Y8474@localhost> <1022017861.7498.35.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1022017861.7498.35.camel@nosferatu.lan>; from azarah@gentoo.org on Tue, May 21, 2002 at 22:51:00 +0100 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.4 Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 1f6e4832-8edd-418c-b781-978993e373e1 X-Archives-Hash: 1d2460534e2741c30e7b445a173b3955 On 2002.05.21 22:51 Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 00:32, José Fonseca wrote: > > > If you think that Mesa itself is redundant and should be masked, ok - > > that's another option (just now I've been troubleshooting a Gentoo user > > > which installed Mesa over X and DRI wasn't working) -, but the current > > nowhere-land situation makes no sense. Mesa-glu _is_ being used, only > that > > is the 3.5 version - for no reason. And there have been quite some > > bugfixes since. > > > > Bottom line, either Mesa is completely masked out or is completely > > unmasked, and the same goes for GLU. Keeping an older version for no > > reason makes no sense. > > > > Sorry for the late reply, but was MIA a bit. > > True, we still have the mesa ebuilds, but the virtuals > should (virtual/glu) be satisfied by xfree. Yes, I know > they all should be masked, but havent gotten to it, or > rather, im still sorda in limbo. > > What installed Mesa over X? If this happens, the ebuild > is broken, or somebody messed with the > /usr/portage/profile//virtuals . I've checked the ebuild and both Mesa and XFree86 provide virtual/opengl, but even on my box (which just has XFree86) when making "emerge -p mesa" or "merge -p mesa-glu" emerge doesn't complaint. (My portage system it's not broken because runnin "emerge -p ?cron" does create a error..) So something must be wrong with the ebuilds... they should be blocking. You can see the thread here: http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-user/2002-May/023856.html . > > Getting Mesa 4.0.x to work with opengl-update ... might > be a plan, but then I think we should drop the seperate > ebuilds, and only have mesa (not mesa, and mesa-glu). > How does 4.0.1 work with DRI currently ? Last reports Mesa 4.0 was major step for driver architecture and performance, but this is completely transparent to the applications that use since they only interface with /usr/lib/libGL.so which is a dispatch lib. In XFree86 Mesa is actually embebed in every driver *_dri.so, and the software indirect render libGLcore.so. The more important for applications with Mesa 4.0 is that it's conformant with OpenGL 1.3, so it should be also be next with a 1.3 compliant GLU. > I had, was that the ones (3.4.2 distributed with xfree) > still worked best in 99% of setups. So basically ... > is there really a need for 4.0.1 ? > At least, for me there isn't. I was concerned with GLU, which wasn't on the right place (/usr/lib/ligGLU.so) so I thought it had be done via mesa-glu - which was old. Now I see that the solution is not install mesa-*, but use the XFree86's libGLU.so via the 'opengl-update' script too. This way we always keep the OpenGL implementations as a whole, and there won't be so much problems when XFree 4.3.0 is released. Mesa might still be interesting for other people without X, but that is not really so important for now. (If you want help with the Mesa ebuilds I can help later on - now I'm on a tight schdule for a couple of weeks). What's important now is getting XFree86's OpenGL works out of the box. In other words, IMHO: - libGLU should be managed by 'opengl-update' - it shouldn't be possible to install Mesa with X (at least, until it's managed by opengl-update too) - the nvidia OpenGL still needs a GLU, so the ebuild should compile Mesa 3.4.x GLU - which seems to be the one that is expected by the drivers - sgi-glu should be dumped since it's not really necessary. It's the one used in Mesa 4.x, and will be used when the X uses it too. > > Greetings, > > Martin Schlemmer Regards, José Fonseca